Tuesday, June 25, 2024

John P. Murphy (RC) on the Damnation of Infants who Die in their Mother's Womb

 Under the heading of “No substitute for Baptism,” John P. Murphy wrote:

 

At this point the reader may have a difficulty. It can be put in this way: Is it not true that Mary Magdalen was a saint from that moment in which Christ forgave her because she loved much? And yet we are not aware that she was then baptised. It is not true that the Holy Innocents did not receive the Sacrament of Baptism? Also, that some of the canonised saints were only catechumens, and so forth? Now, it will promote tidiness and clarity of thought if we deal with this difficulty by proposing to ourselves these two questions, and by answering them: First, Has Christ instituted any other positive means of regeneration besides baptism, either by way of addition to or exception from the law of baptism? Secondly, Is it not possible that, from the very nature of things which precedes all positive law and is allowed for in positive law, it might happen that a person could receive justification without the actual reception of the Sacrament of Baptism?

 

We answer the first of these questions in the negative. We cannot admit any other means of salvation positively instituted by Christ, for the very good reason that his positive law has provided one means and only one. If, therefore, any theories are advanced on the question of salvation which involve the recognition of some means of salvation positively instituted by Christ, other than baptism, such theories must immediately be rejected as at least erroneous. Attempts of this kind have been made from time to time. The best known is that of the theologian Cajetan, who expressed the opinion that in the case of infants dying in the mother’s womb, the prayers of the parents could secure the justification and salvation of the children. He thought that a blessing of the child in the womb, given in the name of the Blessed Trinity, would secure this. This opinion was regarded with great disapproval by the theologians of the Council of Trent, and though it was not actually condemned, Pope Pius V ordered that it should be expunged from the works of Cajetan. A somewhat similar view was held by Gerson, Durand, Bianchi, and others. Even St Bonaventure seems to have nodded; for he says that an infant would be deprived of grace if unbaptised, unless God made it the object of some special privilege. (In IV Sent., I iv, dist. iv.)

 

The fundamental error of all such views is that they introduce, without warrant of any kind from Revelation, a second means of salvation positively instituted by Christ. They demand the recognition of what we might call a pseudo-Sacrament. If, for instance, such a rite as blessing an infant in its mother’s womb is sufficient for its justification, then we must admit a pseudo-Sacrament positively instituted by Christ, by way of addition to or exception from the law of baptism which he has made. To admit this is gratuitous, as it is not mentioned by Christ, and it is erroneous, as it is plainly against the universality of the words of Christ.

 

We must conclude then that infants dying in their mother’s womb do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven. At the same time they do not suffer from what is called the pain of sense. According to St Thomas, they enjoy a real happiness which consists, not indeed in that vision of God which grace alone makes possible, but in the natural love and knowledge of God. (In IV Sent., I ii, dist. xxx, Q. II, art 2, ad 5.)

 

We answer our second question in the affirmative. It can happen that a person receives justification without actually receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. And it can happen in one of two ways: either, 1. by Martyrdom, or 2, by Charity. (John P. Murphy, “The Sacrament of Baptism,” in The Teaching of the Catholic Church: A Summary of Catholic Doctrine, ed. George D. Smith, 2 vols. [New York: The MacMillan Company, 1927, 1959], 2:778-79, emphasis in bold added)